building. we'll keep him here on outnumbered over time. click the ot tab and we'll see you back here tomorrow the band is back together baby and it feels good. and "happening now" starts right now. >> and the president saying the buck stops with them in a counter terrorism operation that killed two hostages including an american aid worker. >> they are telling us about the deaths of two infamous terrorist that will not threaten our country no more. >> following the money. new questions about the donations with secretary of state clinton. and what could the fallout mean for her and the presidential campaign. >> and every teen should be aware of this. this is a diet pill or killer

drug? new concerns after a college student dies after buying a diet drug on line. questions lomb about the chemical it contains. >> and a routine traffic stop becomes a deadly encounter. >> this guy was wanted for more than that and would not go quietly. it is all happening now. and we begin with breaking news in the fight against terror president obama offering an emotional apology for the hostages killed in a drone strike on the pakistan boarder. >> both were aide workers.

both were kidnapped. two other americans were killed in deadly raids. adam and a chmed. what are the legal questions involved? charles simpson is former deputy assistant secretary for the detainees and senior legal fellow. he has great expertise in this. as we look at what the president has to say. they say neither when they are talking about the al-qaeda members that were american neither was specifically targeted and that is important legally why? >> it mean its was an accident in layperson's terms. from a lawyer's perspective, they followed the rules of engagement thoroughly and made sure as much intelligence they

could get given the time constraints they were trying to target the al-qaeda member. they had no idea they were in that house. >> if they were targeting americans, even the al-qaeda members there is a different way to get approval to get that? josh earnest has stepped to the podium and so stand by and we'll listen in to the press briefing now. >> on record and as the president mentioned, our country and government's willingness to step up to it mistakes and prevent them from happening again makes our country unique and contributes to our strength. josh let's get started with the questions. >> thanks, josh we'll start with the facts of what happened. you said you could discuss them. how many other people were killed in the two strikes?

either local civilians or a militants? >> i will not be able to provide specific numbers on. this i can tell you, that in this specific strike that resulted in the deaths of dr. weinstein and mr. laporto, there was an al-qaeda leader among those killed that is a hmed fruk the american citizen al-qaeda leader. this was a strike against the al-qaeda compound and the result was the death of at least one al-qaeda leader. i can tell you that the assessment that we have right now, does not raise questions about additional civil yap loss of life. the relationship for that the standard that was in place and

to the best of our knowledge was closely followed by the counter terrorism officials and to adhere to that near certainty standard. first one is near certainty that this is an al-qaeda compound and that turned out to be true and correct. the other near certainty assessment is that no civilians would be harmed if this was carried out. unfortunately that was not correct and the operation led to a tragic unintended consequence. >> and there is very little to know about the operation. who was the target of that operation and were others killed? >> josh i can tell you that mr. gadon was not specifically targeted. but in a fashion that was similar to the operation that we are discussing that the resulted

in the deaths the operation was against an al-qaeda compound. and so again, it is a scenario where u.s. officials had determined with near certainty, that an operation could be carried out in an al-qaeda compound that was frequented and one al-qaeda leader was located. and that operation did result in the death of mr. gadoni. >> and there was not specific individuals that were targeted in that strike. but more the u.s. anyhow it was a place that al-qaeda guys went and so the u.s. struck there under the preassumption they would be able to take out operatives by striking that location? >> yes, based on the intelligence assessment they could come with near certainty

it was a compound with al-qaeda leaders. that applied to the first operation and the one that resulted in the dead of a hmed. >> there were hundreds of hours of surveillance against that particular al-qaeda compound and this surveillance included near continuous surveillance in the days leading up to the operation. and that led to near certain assessment that it was an al-qaeda compound and frequented by an al-qaeda leader and did not include or that civilians would not be included in the compound. obviously that was incorcorrect. >> you said in your statement this morning that the u.s. recently confirmed what happen and these individuals had died. what was that?

was that days or weeks or months ago. and how long did you wait before informing the families? >> josh this is a good question. when a counter terrorism operation is carried out, it is followed by a battle damage assessment and our intelligence professionals evaluate the region or the area where the operation was carried out, to determine the results of the operation and whether or not if any, civilian casulties occurred. and in the process of carrying out that battle damage assessment, that draws on multiple sources of intel, there was some indication that dr.

wienstein was killed. and as intelligence was collected and indicated and raised questions of whether or not dr. weinstein was alive, they began to explore more comb pletely whether in fact he was dead and try to learn the circumstances of his death. and only in the last several days did the intelligence community assess with a high degree of confidence that dr. vein stein was killed in a u.s. government counter terrorism operation. the president was briefed by his national security time very soon after that assessment was completed. and upon receiving that

assessment, the president had his time to declass foy as much information for two reasons. none is for providing details to the families and be cappedit about what had happen much >> they have to the confidence to paining. i guess he the si particularly as serious as this. i would say one other thing about our youp am fam. it was very aware as indicated that the government was to find

when there was intelligence it was shared with the family. it was only after it was completed in the last several days was the family informed that the intelligence community does assess that dr. weinstien was killed in a u.s. government counter terrorism operation. >> i know many of us have what you have on the speech that the president gave laying out the counter terrorism strategy and in that speech the president was firm about laying out a near certainty standard that no civilians would be killed. today we heard different rhetoric. we heard the president talking about the fog of war and cruel

truth that deadly mistakes can happen, i am wondering has the president lived up to the principles that he set out for himself when he gave that speech? >> the president has absolutely lived up to those principles. there was not a lot of clear guidance or protocols are not as clear as they are today about how the counter terrorism operations should be carried out. and because of the diligent work of the president and national security team and professionals. there is much greater clarity of how our counter terrorism officials can both use your significant capabilities to protect the american people and live up to the very high standards and values that are

that the president expects. >> and so that is what the goal of those reforms and all laid out in the speech. snrngs in the afterath of a severe questions. can be tame to the we follow them based on whoo we know so far. they follow those protocols and yet, there was an unintended and that is where the president is looking for forms to implement in this process. and there is an ongoing inspector general review on this matter. there will be an opportunity for

someone to take an independent look and offer up recommendations that could be made and more prerent >> and there is a flurry of statements from the members of congress not only joining in on ondollarances. >> does the figure out what i thought it pray. >> the president believes this congress does have a role in these programs and that's why the president he made clear when these kinds of counter terrorism operations are carried out, relevant members of congress are

briefed about the situation. and the mrlgz pursues cooperating with congressional over sight. and i can tell you as these intelligence assessments about the death of dr. weinstien and ultimate high confidence assessment that he was killed in the u.s. government situation. >> okay. >> josh? >> will the u.s. government provide compensation to the families? >> yes. >> will you give us the details and how much? >> i am not aware of the and the familiar familiar. respiratory canned (inaudible) >> jeff there are certain aspects of this specific

operation that i am not good-bye to be able to discuss including how it was carried out. i can say a couple of things in as a general matter. the president and i had an opportunity to visit with him today believes that the top priority is to keep the american people safe. in this incident it is painful and tragic in the course of trying to protect the american public. an innocent american citizens lost his life. and it highlights the challenge that our counter are terrorism professionals confront every day in terms of balancing the need to use our significant capabilities to protect the american people and the need to operations consistent.

>> and i think you don't want to confirm that? >> i am not in the position to talk about specifically how it was kerred out. >> and i can say these counter terrorism operations that are critical to the security to the and american people there is an ongoing review and by the inspeculate or energy. and to and make refarms that are if it would crop up againment and these kinds of revoys they

don't have national security professionals every operation when it is success sufficiently, and to lessons in and it is strengthening the and make sure they are loving. >> she said and get them to take it sourcely and consistent approach to supporting hostages and their families. do you hear that criticism or can and should the united states government be doing more to support hostages and their families? >> jeff i probably should have said it earlier. >> the president had an opportunity to do it this morning and we'll use this

opportunity to convey the family for the death of dr. weinstein. they are endowering something unthinkable. and our thoughts and prayers are with the weinstein family. and so an expression on the lines was what you just read from her statement is of course understandable. and what she noted in her statement is her appreciation for u.s. counter terrorism and national security professionals that tried to rescue her husband and keep the family informed. we have heard from other families about the need for improved communication with the federal government when they are in the and period the way they

community are follow fames in terebl on position. >> the have woman with that frustration. and the goal is to try to address about the frustration. >> and following up on what jeff asked can you say that the youth of counter terrorism operations like the one that was used in this incident have been reduced because of the review that is ongoing. are things happening less often? are those strikes happening less often and has something been

court. robber >> the u.s. retains success cannot abilities to help the american people. and the expectationna the president has, is that when these operations are kaefrd out. they follow specific protodolls and procedures and balance the need to protect the american people and need to admir to standards. work heard, >> consistent with those protocols our counter terrorism it if there are wre forms that are drived from the or may be those >> the administration worked

request. >> and i appreciate you give us the time line and there is almost no time in the time line. what day did the strike happen. >> where and how is a when. >> when is in the same category. there was is an exhaustive list not to disclose. but both strikes occurred in january. but precisely when. >> early or late. >> i am not saying precisely when. >> can you give us a sense of when the government first learned or first suspected mr. we upstein was dead? is that february or late february.

give us a sense of the time? >> i would say in the weeks after the strike there were -- in the weeks after the operation there started to be some intelligence that indicated the possible death of dr. weinstein. it was in the course of following up and developing intelligence from a wide variety of sources that the intelligence committee assessed with high confidence that he was killed. >> if it was weeks it would be in february. so in february sometime you had that initial assessment that they might be dead? >> i don't think the intelligence community roached an assessment. >> they started hearing and at that point in february they also commutenicated to the family

he might be died? >> in developing the information pointed to the death of mr. weinstein. it was shared with the president and family. >> you don't have that information? what would the security risk to be in telling us in more precision when these things happen? >> it is hard to me. >> i get that strike itself. but some being more precise about it is in the interest of what the president promised the american public of transparency. >> we are are having a conversation about a previously classified operation. that is consistent with what the president talked about this morning. >> for me to talk about concerns

could compromise those methods. we have to be assigned. >> and yesterday, we first heard that weinstien was dead. >> no members of the national security that was in regular touch about with the family to keep them apprised. >> was yesterday the first time they were told of confirmation he was dead. >> that was the first time by the community that dr. weinstein was killed in the context of a u.s. government operation. >> did the president sign off or in keeping with the preassumption there were no americans there without him

signs off. >> the president did not sign off. and there are policies and protocols in place. for them to dear out the operation including a wide variety with the assessment that the target is an al-qaeda target. and that civilians would not be harmed if the operation were carried out. and that is a decision that is that is a policy that the president and team put in place and followed by our counter terrorism professionals. respiratory the president was direct up here today when he indicated that while he did not sign off on the specific operation. he takes full responsibility for

the trag tick >> although he was not the suspect in these. >> the thing about mr. gadon. he was indicted for trezon in 2006. he presented a danger. and the he was someone that the united states was going to find. >> would the president wanted to go for and said strike if he knew adam was there. >> it is hard to determine the hypothetical. he was not classified as an htc. but he was, obviously somebody wanted by the u.s. government because he was indicted for

trezon. and it is within that president put in place >> in this case mr. gadon was not targeted. but the compoin pound he was in was hit. >> and among the new disclosures raises troubling questions about the intelligence that the government is using. >> these and other strikes in which civilians were cleared made certain that there was a standard. >> and what is the white house's response to that. >> there is no evidence at this point to indicate they deviated

from the established protocol. it i to step back here. we are talking about the afghanistan/pakistan region. this region of the world that is remote. and the president talked about the speech in may 2013, al-qaeda figures hide out because they are remote. and they know that local forces in some cases don't have the will or capacity to go after them. and you are talking about a circumstance like that. and the other thing they know it is not feasible. >> and when we are talking about an entertainment like this.

it is absolutely for example, in this case. we can conduct surveillance of a compound. and we know that near continuous surveillance was conducted in the days leading up to the operation. and that based on that surveillance and other forms of intelligence, the intelligence community a certained that it was a compound frequented by al-qaeda leaders. also they a certained no civilians were there and at risk if the operation was carried out. we know that al-qaeda considers these kinds of hostages to be extraordinarily valuable. they try to conceal the location

of the hostages. and that is why, unfortunately, that near certainty assessment was wrong. and why the president conducted a review to determine if we can make it less likely that these kinds of unintended consequences happen again. >> if al-qaeda would make a trade like the one for bergdahl was it offered? >> the u.s. government went to great lengths to try to rescue dr. weinstein. >> we were -- >> we are clear about the policy of the united states painful as it is. it prevents the united states from negotiating with terrorist.

that policy was in place in the course of our efforts trying to secure dr. wein stein. and that is a difficult one for the family. it is a difficult policyine just for the average human being. but the analysis to engage in the practice to secure the risk of innocent americans would only put more at risk. >> you will not tell us if they were droeb strikes. >> john despite the information i am able to provide, i cannot discuss how it was carried out. you can tell us adam gadan and a chman was not targets. does the president regret it.

>> no. they had prominent positions in the al-qaeda. one was a leader of a qis. and al-qaeda in the indian subcontinent and playing a prominant role in leading that network's operation and planning in that region of the world. mr. gadon, had styled himself as a prominent spokesperson for al-qaeda. and it is for that and other reasons that he was indicted by the u.s. government for treason. >> and the justification for killing of american citizens they represented the imminent threat and capture was not feasible. are you saying they represented an imminent threat of a violent attack. that is under your policy is

a justify have had killing offa an american. >> i am saying that two al-qaeda leaders was frequented an al-qaeda compound. and the united states carried out a counter terrorism operation against those compounds with the intent of taking al-qaeda fighters and leaders off of the battlefield. we do that because the al-qaeda organization is planning and plotting against american citizens. the united states is at war with al-qaeda and affiliates because of the way they are planning and plotting against the united states and their citizens. >> did they represent a threat of imminent attack against the united states. that is words of the attorney general as justifiedicling in america.

>> what i can share from you, these two individuals were not targeted in the specific counter terrorism operation, but we know that they were hit in this counter terrorism operation, and they were killed in this counter terrorism operation because they were leaders of al-qaeda. and we know that al-qaeda is active he planning and plotting. >> is it legal under the guidelines that the government put in place is it legal? >> what is permissible in the protocol that the president established that the united states will carry out strikes against al-qaeda compounds this we can assess with near certainty they are frekwepted by al-qaeda leaders. that is the operation that took

place. and that operation resulted in the death of al-qaeda fighters and leaders inside of the compound. >> would it have been illegal to intentionally target those two men? >> there is a separate procedure for specifically targeting americans and this protocol was followed in the target against him. if not adam gadan and a chmed who was being targeted? >> what was targeted the and that is assessed with near certainty. and al-qaeda fighters and in

this case al-qaeda leaders. and it is targeted. and there were no names attached to that. >> that's correct. we were targeting an al-qaeda compound. it was maintained by al-qaeda and frequented by the al-qaeda leaders. >> there is another story i want to get you on quickly. revelations of the clinton foundation and take the second part first. in hindsight given what has happen with russia was it a mistake to allow a russian company to corner the market on uranium in the united states? was it a mistake to allow them

to control a fifth of the uranium supply in the united states. >> i can take your question and get back to you on the specific transaction that you are talking about. >> memorandum of understanding that governs hillary clinton's dealing financial dealings of the administration and her husband's speaking fees can you make that memorrandum public? i don't think we have seen it. >> this resides in the state department and ask them about that policy. >> we have asked them. in the interest of transparency can we see that memorandum. >> i think the goal of the memorandum is to insure even the appearance of a conflict of interest was avoided by insuring that there was greater

transparency and greater knowledge about the contributions that are accepted by the clinton foundation for the charitable work they do. >> essentially secretary of state hillary clinton promised to make public the donations to the clinton foundation and speaking fees for president clinton. isn't it clear now that secretary clinton did not a boyd by her own memorandum. >> i am not sure if that is clear. >> you should ask her. >> we read that uranium one and foreign company donated over 2 million to the clinton foundation while secretary of state that is a clear violation of a memorandum of understanding as it is explained to us by you. >> for the details of the transaction. i refer you to the state department or secretary

clinton's team. that is not reviewed at this level. >> and we know that it previously 500000 from the algerrian went to the clinton foundation. isn't this a clear violation to the memorandum. >> american i refer you to secretary clinton's team? >> can you check in on this: >> you are asking about the compliance and whether it lived up the standards that secretary clinton herself. >> they refer us back to the white house on whether or not any agency objected to that uranium one deal allowing the russians to take steps in cornering the uranium market. and refer to you.

is there any objections? can you find out if any objection by the united states government for the russians making such a bold move. >> i will take a look and see if there is information. another thing pointed out here this is a decision that other countries had the opportunity to weigh in on as well. and that seems like a relevant fact in terms. >> i am asking about our country. >> understandable. and if there is information we can provide i will get it. >> and jim, before we get back to the operations i wanted to follow-up on john's question about the clinton foundation. do you feel and the president feel that there was sufficient information while she was secretary of state. are you fully satisfied with the disclosure? >> i haven't been presented with

evidence to that somehow there was insufficient information presented to the information. >> i want to ask about gadon one more time. you mentioned he was a prominent spokesman, but had he moved in an operational role in any way? >> i don't have any but to note he was an al-qaeda leader that prekwepted the compound. he did serve as the public face of al-qaeda in some communications and wanted by the united states government for providing support to terrorist and for treason. and an operation against the compound would succeed in taking out members of the al-qaeda leadership, in this case that

assessment was correct. >> i know that there are as we talked about here details. and i may be going through red lights here what was it about the surveillance of the compounds that gave the counter terrorism confidence or high levels of confident that they were al-qaeda compounds and they were about to be struck. >> there is not additional information that i can tell you that led to the near certainty that was reached. >> can you say whether or not they were ground forces that carried out. >> i am not able to discuss how the operation was carried out. >> and getting back to the use of drones does the president have any second thoughts now about their usefulness in carrying out those kinds of operations? >> first of all, the thing we do

know about the things of the counter terrorism operations they have made al-qaeda less capable of receiving recruits. >> and they have succeeded in deminnishing al-qaeda's capability. and we know that al-qaeda leader ares are now intensely focused on their own personal security. and when we know that al-qaeda leaders are focused intenty on their own personal security they have less time and energy to devote to plotting against the united states. so that is an important thing. >> the drone strikes work? >> well the president indicated and he went through a lot of this in his national defense university speech. our preference when dealing with suspected terrorist is to capture detain debrief and

prosecute them. and we the obama administration has a strong track record of doing exactly that in locations all around the world, frankly. but the fact is in this some remote locations where extremist are hiding out, local authorities have limited capacity and some cases limited will to go after the extremist. and limited capacity of the local forces and remote nature of the environments is why the extremist are hiding there. and what the president made clear and what he made clear we can't conduct an osama bin laden raid against every terrorist. there is a variety of reasons.

one it is risk to our men and women in uniform and two, a higher risk to civilian population than the other capabilities that are rused and a deployment of large number of forces on the ground could lead to a fire fight with the local civilians and impression that the united states is seeking to occupy territory in their neighborhood. that is a reasonable conclusion if you are in a remote region of the world. you turn around and see the u.s. military personnel. and so the truth is narr orally tailored counter terrorism actions the ones that are resulting in least amount of civilian life. but what is clear this morning,

is that even narrowly tailored actions do not eliminate the risk of innocent loss of life. however the president is determined to push his team and this is a conviction that is other senior members of the national security team. to review and reform the protocols in place to allow us to carry out counter terrorism operations that are important to our national security and make sure they live up to the high standards and values. >> one last thing. it had to be known by counter terrorism officials that al-qaeda leaders and compounds that it is likely hold americans hostage or potential of hostages. >> josh fielding a host of

questions on the new's story. the counter terrorism operation that killed three americans. one aide worker and the other two had joined al-qaeda. and the questions of the legality of that and one headline is that josh earnest alluding to the fact that this particular home or compound targeted because it was an al-qaeda compound and not a person individual that was targeted. back with this charles, former deputy of defense for detainees and legal expert on a host of topics. we started with you and heard more from josh earnest. is it legal to target a compound without knowing who is inside when potentially it could be american citizens? >> the short answers is yes. we learned a lot from the press

briefing, but a basic legal stand point. we are at war and armed conflict. and hear that there was hundreds of hours of assessment and they were over the compound and we had facial recognition and other decknology that we use to figure out who is there and coming and going. and i think that one of mr. earnest best points that drones offer more scrutiny and more precision than many other tools of war in an armed conflict. if all of those preassumptions are true it is a lawful target. >> and let me ask you this quickly. we heard from josh earnest that al-qaeda is actively planning against the united states.

and you heard from the journalist. the president said they are decimated and on the run and now they are actively planning against the united states and one obviously political, the other having more to do with national security. >> yeah. as to the political question the death of al qaeda has been much exaggerated. they are not decimated. they are actually on the rise along with isis which is on the rise and on the march. but in terms of targeting al qaeda members who happen to have american citizenship, which was one part of his discussion here. jonathan carl was asking him questions about did the president have the legal authority based on their own standards to go after them? i think what the press secretary made clear is that they were going after compounds.

compounds, not people. this is a policy well above what the law requires. >> i have ten seconds to go to commercial. we appreciate your expertise very much. jonathan carl asked about hillary clinton. we'll have more after the break.

you might have heard the reference in the white house press briefing a moment ago, more bombshell allegations that could rock hillary clinton's presidential campaign. the soon to be released book "clinton cash" links hillary clinton's state department to russian uranium deals as foreign money poured into her family's foundation. chief white house correspondent ed henry joins us from our new york city newsroom with more on this. >> good to see you. josh earnest was pressed about this. it's not about the clinton

campaign but about her time as secretary of state and the administration approved this deal that as you heard, basically helped this russian company corner the markets here in the united states for uranium. josh earnest pressed on the fact at the beginning of the administration there had been a memorandum signed that the clinton foundation was not supposed to be taking in these donations from foreign governments. some of those slipped through the cracks. in this case it might have been a loophole that allowed foreign companies, but not a government to contribute to the foundation to the tune of millions of dollars. just got this statement the last few moments from the clinton campaign. brian fallon saying no one produced a shred of evidence that hillary clinton ever took action as secretary of state in order to support the interests of donors to the clinton foundation to suggest the state department under then secretary clinton exerted undue influence in the u.s. government's review

of the sale of uranium one is utterly baseless. what's interesting, chelsea clinton today, who is taking on a bigger role at the clinton foundation weighed in as well. i was told we had the sound. she said there will be more transparency in the days ahead to make sure all this gets cleaned up. >> obviously, they have a lot of questions left to answer and the things coming out today in the "wall street journal," "new york times," "the washington post," must make for uncomfortable times at clinton camp headquarters. >> no doubt. they want to talk about the economy, her trips to iowa and new hampshire. instead what this is doing is potentially throwing her off her message. interesting a short while ago politico had a story saying john podesta was here in new york talking to campaign donors trying to raise money and was getting hit with questions from the donors saying what's going

on with this book? >> ed henry. interesting stuff. a potentially historic vote happening on the floor of the u.s. senate. we'll have that for you after the break.

a very busy news day. thanks for hanging with us. "the real story" with gretchen stops now. >> sshgs. >> president obama says a u.s. drone strike accidentally killed an american and italian being held hostage by al qaeda. it all happened during a counterterrorism operation back in january. i'm gretchen carlson and we are here to bring you the real story today. now an investigation is going to be launched into that strike. here are the victims. american doctor warren weinstein who was abducted in pakistan and giovanni lo porto an italian aide worker. pete doocy, what more are we learning about this tragic raid? >> we heard minutes ago from the presence secretary josh earnest in the